September 27, 2011

Militantly Nude

Yet no matter how successful they are in smashing cultural norms, they still can’t escape the general consensus that day-to-day urban nudity has public health consequences. The nudists’ reply is that the public health argument is merely a smokescreen to justify puritanical repression. The anti-nudity advocates are being dishonest, the protesters argue; opposition to public nakedness is not based on concern about transmissible diseases, but rather on old-fashioned prudery. While that may be true, I counter with this: The San Francisco public nudists are also being dishonest; there is indeed a sexual component to their behaviour, and they are exhibitionists using politics to justify their thrill-seeking.

Readers of a delicate constitution should note that Zombie’s report contains photos of unattractive middle-aged men in a state of militant undress (boots, cockrings and bandanas notwithstanding). And I suspect most will come to appreciate why it is that attractive people get paid to take their clothes off, while fat ageing hippies and saggy-titted old queens generally don’t.

Some of you may also register a whiff of disingenuousness in exhibitionists accusing their critics of being repressive and stuffy. Exhibitionists may be eager to dispense with clothing in incongruous locations – say, a traffic island in the middle of a busy intersection - but they desperately need an audience, preferably a clothed one, and preferably one that’s embarrassed, inconvenienced and unwilling. San Francisco is remarkably well-equipped in terms of nude-friendly laws, clubs and amenities, including a nude beach and nearby nudist colonies. As Zombie notes, what’s revealing is that such venues weren’t deemed sufficient for our wrinkly radicals:

These protesters and urban nudists don’t simply want to be naked in private or be naked around other naked people; they want to be naked around clothed people. Because that’s where the sexual thrill originates; violating a taboo. Being naked where nakedness is normal doesn’t count; eliciting shock or interest from unwitting strangers is the whole point.

Quite. Those indulging in their kink for being noticed are, in effect, saying: “Hey, you. Look at my bollocks. I SAID, LOOK AT MY BOLLOCKS RIGHT NOW, YOU UPTIGHT CONSERVATIVE PRUDES!” And while I doubt many readers here are prone to fainting at the sight of withered genitals and subsiding buttocks, they may conceivably object to being made an accomplice to someone else’s psychodrama. As one young lady points out, “Unwanted exposure to scrotum is never okay.”

Update, via the comments:

Writing in the Bay Guardian, Tim Redmond dismissed as “shit” the idea that parents taking their kids to school may not appreciate walking past groups of old men displaying their genitals: “I’ve often walked my daughter to school along Castro Street, and I don’t care whether people are naked or not. Neither does she. My kids are San Francisco city kids; it’s all a big Whatever.” Bay Guardian readers obliged by adding the inevitable accusations of “rightwing hatred.” Because parents who don’t want to have to walk their children past creepy naked guys are obviously just full of that hateful rightwing hateyness.

But I don’t think you have to be prudish - or worse, “rightwing” - to object to fetishistic public nudity. Setting aside modesty and mutual respect - and small children asking what cockrings are - there are some basic hygiene issues. Think how some people feel about public toilet seats and then extend that to café seats, clothes shops, public transport, etc. Imagine you’re in a supermarket queue with a basket of groceries. Is the thought of some old bloke’s tackle hovering near your lettuce or freshly baked baguette a pleasing one? And isn’t that the whole point of “radical” exhibitionism - to shock, to transgress - to make others feel uncomfortable?

Heh. Saggy buttocks aside, it’s all a bit needy, which is rarely attractive.

And the basic dynamic is the same old same old. Do something that will irritate lots of people – and do it precisely because of that – preferably while claiming to be “oppressed” by those who take exception to whatever it is you’ve done in order to piss them off. Some people weigh their activist credentials by the fuss they arouse, deliberately, while dismissing the irritated response as a sign of being unsophisticated or repressed, or a Daily Mail reader. The degree of inconvenience and subsequent complaint can then be construed as evidence of your own righteousness, and thus flattering.

"...the ever-escalating recent increase in public nudists spurred S.F. supervisor Scott Wiener to propose new legislation requiring naked people to sit on towels when using public facilities, and also to cover their nether regions while eating in restaurants — so that other residents won’t have to come into contact with whatever bodily excretions that might result from sitting down pants-free.

What’s interesting is the disingenuous attempt to frame disapproval as prudish, frustrated and unhip. Tim Redmond of the Bay Guardian dismissed as “shit” the idea that parents taking their kids to school may not appreciate walking past groups of old men displaying their genitals. Redmond wrote, “I’ve often walked my daughter to school along Castro Street, and I don’t care whether people are naked or not. Neither does she. My kids are San Francisco city kids; it’s all a big Whatever.” Bay Guardian readers obliged by adding the inevitable references to “right wing hatred.” Because parents who don’t want to have to walk their children past creepy naked guys are obviously just full of that hateful rightwing hateyness.

But I don’t think you have to be prudish - or worse, “rightwing” - to object to fetishistic public nudity. Setting aside modesty and mutual respect - and small children asking what cockrings are - there are some pretty basic hygiene issues. Think how some people feel about public toilet seats and then extend that to café seats, clothes shops, public transport, checkout queues, etc. Imagine you’re in a queue with a basket of groceries. Is the thought of some old bloke’s tackle hovering near your freshly baked baguette a pleasing one? But then surely this is the whole point of “radical” exhibitionism? To shock, to transgress - to make other people uncomfortable.

They'll keep pushing, and pushing, and pushing. And someday they'll get the reaction they want. Only they'll discover they don't really want that reaction after all, because it's going to be really harsh. The 21st Century is shaping up to be the age of "Wait! I didn't really mean it!"

Have they considered that their public nudity might be offensive to Muslims? Question for any Muslims who may be present...Is it more offensive for someone to burn a Koran within the privacy of one's own private property or to have Muslim women and children exposed to the nudity of kafirs on a public street?

One of the “nude-in” protestors wants us to believe, “the only people who have problems with it are excessively authoritarian. They’re angry, they’re religious nutcases or they’ve got unrealistic issues of body shame and body acceptance.” Others held placards that read, “Get your hate off my body.” Again, note the urge to construe any objection as authoritarian and malign. No other explanations are conceivable, apparently. But I’d imagine it’s hard to enjoy your sandwich and coffee if you’re concerned about the proximity of skid marks, pubic hairs, etc. And it really doesn’t matter how scrupulously clean an exhibitionist thinks he is; the point is other people may not appreciate being obliged to rely on his confidence, whether they wish to or not.

Basically, “radical” public nudity is presumptuous and impolite. This isn’t about “body acceptance,” let alone “free speech,” as one protestor claimed. Given that the protestors sought out a venue where people would be more likely to object, it’s more plausible that these are just men who like showing their genitals to people who don’t particularly want to see them. Or put another way, they’re sad attention junkies intent on being juvenile and vaguely obnoxious.

Re Mr. Tim Redmond and his unconcern for his daughter's psychic welfare: as a former child who grew up in a previous Age of Aquarius, I can tell you now that a lot of stuff that adults did really grossed me out, but as I knew my opinion was not welcome, I too retreated from possible parental disapprobation behind my books, the door to my bedroom, and a carefully fostered air of "whatever." And that was in the Seventies, which now seem from this distance to be a time of innocence and respectability. Children are marvelously adaptable indeed, but that doesn't mean they'll adapt in a way you like.

“Everyone who disagrees with me is a BAD PERSON and should be ignored.”

Exactly. And so protestors wave placards that say “Get your hate off my body,” which is conveniently self-flattering and rather begs the question. It might as well say “I am right. I just am.”

And it’s a standard tactic, especially among lefties. As, for instance, when Laurie Penny tells us that “Tories” – i.e., anyone insufficiently leftwing as determined by her – are “pointlessly malevolent.” How so, you ask? Well, they just are, apparently. Or when the leftist playwright David Hare describes the Coalition – and by extension pretty much anyone to the right of him - as “spiteful.” No evidence of spite is offered, obviously, and it seems none is felt to be necessary. What matters is making sure everyone knows that those who disagree with David Hare are nasty, nasty people. Because he says they are.

[ Added: ]

And, unsurprisingly, children learn this emotive trick very quickly. So this week the Labour conference wheeled out a teenager, Rory Weal, to tell the faithful that people who disagree with Labour policy are “ruthless” and “vicious.” “Vicious” being defined as favouring a modest cap on housing benefit – of £20,000 a year. Or considerably more than a typical mortgage. The same benefit cap that Laurie Penny equates with the Nazis’ Final Solution.

Anyone offended by the spectacle could engage in some anti-authoritarian activity of their own and spray-paint the nudists. Or if you don't want to leave a trace, a quick burst of sports coolant spray.

Frankly to me there just perverts who have exhibitionist tendencies.
Than cry foul when people are revolted at the antics pressured on others, to accommodate their weirdness. History is catching up to these wackos.
The kind of people who try to force others to follow their own obsessions.
While never examining why they are driven to do this. There are nude beaches, camps, with their own homes. Why force us to see them naked? Its pathological behavior.
These folks are like 5 year olds in a tantrum.
Besides the obvious health risks, this is an assault on children, & any innocence they can destroy.
One day the hammer is coming down on these kooks. Its inevitable as the World changes, when hippydom dies. Literally from old age. Glad I live in Alberta . Thirty below takes care of these nut cases. Yet those same people who scream to be nude, becomes offended at a drop of a hat at anything they don't like.
The leaf is turning.

Again, it’s the protestors’ disingenuousness that’s interesting. Some claim objections to such displays are driven by “hate” (or worse, “rightwing hate”). Others claim that the only people who could possibly object are “shrinking violets,” “religious nutcases” or simply “hysterical.” But where would exhibitionists be without an audience, preferably a scandalised one?

The protestors deny any sexual or provocative motive and claim they just want to be left alone - on a traffic island in the middle of a busy intersection. But this doesn’t ring true at all. The “nude-in” was originally planned to promote the annual Folsom Street Fair – “the world’s largest leather and fetish event,” at which public masturbation and public sex are common sights, and where the whole point is to have an audience, whether titillated or repelled. (Those in search of proof can find a link with photos via the Zombie article. And again, it’s no beauty pageant.)

Many of the participants are obviously excited by the prospect of provocation for its own sake and seeing just how far they can go. Whatever the excuses, this isn’t about freedom, repression or being uptight; it’s about juvenile transgression and pissing people off. It’s a two-finger salute pretending to be virtue.

Heh. It does seem significant that most practitioners of radical exhibitionism are… well, unattractive and quite old. Few, if any, participants are in the first bloom of youth and none have bodies you’d pay to see unclothed. It’s hardly titillating. It’s more like something that’s being inflicted on others.

I suppose it could be the endpoint of “radical” promiscuity. Among the groups concerned, there’s a large overlap with the leftovers of “activist” fetishism. It’s all a bit dated, like a throwback to the Seventies. When you’re getting a bit long in the tooth and you’ve exhausted the novelty of nipple clamps, group sex, leather harnesses, etc – all in the name of ostentatious transgression – where else is there to go? In order to maintain some pretence of radicalism, other people have to be dragged into whatever desperate spectacle is needed next. It’s not so much radical as needy and sad.